date:20060228

Re: [Biofuel] What?s up with George Monbiot?!

2006-02-28 Thread Burak_l


Mr Monbiot also misses the point that WVO is already there.
And if not converted to biodiesel it will be dumped to the sewage.

Unfortunately there are many writers who do not think in depth or they lack
the information and intellectual development to say the least.
But they justify their existence with contraversies and creating small
fights on details.  Hence they attrack attention.
Yesterday I read an article on my daily news paper promoting the use
nuclear power.  The writer claimed that it was cleaner than the fossil based
fuels and it was the way to go..  He has missed the aftermath of the
nuclear power plants (like how long it takes to clean them up) and also why
we need to save and consider alternatives first.
Nice guy.

Regards

Burak Cedetas


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Appal Energy
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 5:42 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] What?s up with George Monbiot?!


Well, the bright lad obviously hadn't or hasn't heard of algae derived
biofuels.

His arguments are dinosaurs and no doubt he's aware of it. Enjoying the
attention, but also aware of his flaws/omissions in logic.

Todd Swearingen



Michael Redler wrote:

 *What’s up with George Monbiot?!*
 He calls himself an environmentalist? Put lightly, this guy's a little
 annoying.
 In December, 2004 George Monbiot wrote an article titled “Feeding
 Cars, Not People”.
 http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/
 In December, 2006 George Monbiot commented: “By promoting biodiesel as
 a substitute, we have missed the fact that it is worse than the
 fossil-fuel burning it replaces”
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5349045-103390,00.html
 It’s alarming how many short sighted articles there are in such well
 known newspapers, magazines and web sites. I can’t think of any kind
 of article which is more damaging to progressive energy strategies
 than those where the authors refers to themselves as environmentalists
 then, sound the alarm about clean and sustainable alternatives.

 In his 2004 article he said:
 /“Those who worry about the scale and intensity of today's agriculture
 should consider what farming will look like when it is run by the oil
 industry.”/
 //
 After mentioning the “scale and intensity of today’s agriculture” and
 including a reference to a Monsanto promotion in his list of sources,
 he still feels that the oil industry is the one threatening to
 monopolize the World’s biofuel production. Can ANYONE with any
 knowledge of what’s going on, be so myopic as to write an article
 which warns of the positioning of huge agricultural companies like
 Monsanto and explicitly argue an entirely different threat to the
 World’s crops from the oil industry?
 Mr. Monbiot’s analysis concludes that there will be a “catastrophic”
 impact on the global food supply and supports his position by
 calculating the farm land necessary to replace a quantity of petroleum
 with an equal quantity of biofuel. This analysis is seriously flawed
 and here are a few reasons why (although I think I'm preaching to the
 choir here):
 /“If, as some environmentalists demand, it is to happen worldwide,
 then most of the arable surface of the planet will be deployed to
 produce food for cars, not people.”/
 //
 Mr. Monbiot’s example of “arable surface” is the available 5.7m
 hectares in the United Kingdom. I have no reason to believe that he
 considered the seven tenths of the Earth’s surface which until
 recently, has been a source of food but not fuel. It demonstrates
 potential as one of the best and most concentrated sources for biofuel
 plant cultivation in the form of algae.
 But let’s go back to the original premise that you need to replace
 every quantity of petroleum fuel with the same quantity of biofuel
 when discussing road transportation. Despite the initial success of
 gasoline-electric hybrids and the expected success of other hybrid
 configurations (i.e. diesel and flex-fuel) being pretty unambiguous,
 it’s not mentioned at all as something which can seriously effect fuel
 consumption.

 Fuel for transportation has one attribute which gives it a special set
 of variables – it moves. So, what we are really talking about is the
 storage of potential energy from which a vehicle can be able to
 accelerate freely and untethered. Again, the only form of potential
 energy for transportation, according to the article, is liquid fuel.
 There was no mention of the advancements of electrical energy storage
 from which any form of electrical generation can be used – that
 includes solar and wind generation.
 Any claim that the inclusion of solar and wind (for example) in a
 discussion on liquid fuel is off topic, is missing yet another benefit
 of the expansion of a hybrid philosophy in any energy strategy. Not
 only would wind and solar compliment biofuels as it’s land based
 counterpart, advancements in photovoltaic

Re: [Biofuel] What?s up with George Monbiot?!

2006-02-28 Thread Julian Voelcker

You really should just ignore George Mombiot.  He's just a silly little 
man full of his own importance and always has been.

He likes to provide an opinion on everything from the environment, 
biofuels, class structure, etc and I am yet to find anyone that agrees 
with his opinions.

What surprises me is that there are Editors out there willing to 
publish his drivel.
--
Regards,

Julian



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Quackbuster Busted in Court

2006-02-28 Thread Gary L. Green

That was fun.

As a Chiropractor I get lots of this kind of  stuff thrown at me,  
both information and accusations.  As chiros are at the heart of  
Barrett's hate I'm very familiar with him.  It was nice to get a  
glimpse behind the curtain to see how he is funded and the trouble  
he's in.

Yeah, anybody who is constantly photographed in front of military  
equipment wearing dark glasses like this Bolen guy must have a few  
screws loose.  Still got some good info out of him though.

OTOH, Barrett isn't completely wrong either.  Too much of  
Chiropractic IS practiced like a for-profit religion.


On 28 Feb 2006, at 11:27, Kirk McLoren wrote:

 Kirk McLoren wrote:
  American health system rated #72 by WHO and the #1 killer of  
 Americans.
 
  Incidentally also the most expensive health care in the world
  Kirk
 
  http://www.bolenreport.net/feature_articles/feature_article023.htm

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] oil expert: output downhill from here

2006-02-28 Thread AltEnergyNetwork


Oil Expert: Output Downhill From Here

 
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16208021BRD=1713PAG=740dept_id=226967rfi=6
 


By Ted Sickinger, The Oregonian, Portland, Ore. 

 
Feb. 27--Few petroleum geologists qualify as celebrities.
 But Ken Deffeyes, a former Shell Oil geologist who is
 now a professor emeritus of geosciences at Princeton 
University, recently sold out Portland's First Congregational
 Church, where he came to lecture on his latest book, Beyond Oil. 

Before Princeton, Deffeyes worked as a researcher in the 
labs of Shell Oil and taught at the University of Minnesota 
and Oregon State University. At Shell, he worked with the
now-famous petroleum geologist M. King Hubbert. Hubbert
 coined what is fast becoming a fixture in the modern 
lexicon -- peak oil -- when he predicted that U.S. oil
 production would peak in the early 1970s and decline
thereafter. Widely criticized at the time, Hubbert has
 since been vindicated. 

Building on Hubbert's hypotheses, Deffeyes recently 
theorized that world oil production peaked Dec. 16, 2005,
 and has begun its permanent decline, with economic 
disruptions to follow. 

Deffeyes sat down with The Oregonian last week to 
discuss his book and the peak oil phenomenon. His
comments have been edited for length and clarity. 

What's the basic math behind your forecast that world
 oil production peaked Dec. 16? 



full article

 
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16208021BRD=1713PAG=740dept_id=226967rfi=6
 







Get your daily alternative energy news

Alternate Energy Resource Network
  1000+ news sources-resources
updated daily

http://www.alternate-energy.net






Next Generation Grid 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/


Tomorrow-energy 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tomorrow-energy/


Alternative Energy Politics 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] What?s up with George Monbiot?!

2006-02-28 Thread Michael Redler

Thanks Julian,You wrote: "What surprises me is that there are Editors out there willing to publish his drivel."Yes. I'm surprised too. Iwas surprised to see that kind of op-ed appearing inThe Guardian. Then, I found it amazing to see him appearing over and over again in sources that I've always considered respectable, reliable and consistent journalism.For example, this is what I foundat zmag.org From an article sarcastically titled: "Crying Sheep - We Had Better Start Preparing For A Decline In Global Oil Supply""Are global oil supplies about to peak? Are they, in other words, about to reach their maximum and then go into decline? There is a simple answer to this question: no one has the faintest idea."Published on September 27,
2005 http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=56ItemID=8825Apparently, you're no match for Monbiot's wisdom, even if you're a world renowned geophysicist like Hubbert.Uh...but wait. It gets better. He doesn't just contradict himself within the same article. That would be boring. Let's go back a few short years.Here is an article titled: "Our Quality of Life has Peaked in 1974. It's All Downhill Now. We will pay the price for believing the world has infinite resources.""Now, despite the endless denials, it is clear that the wall towards which we are accelerating is not very far away. Within five or 10 years, the global consumption of
oil is likely to outstrip supply."Published on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 by the Guardian/UK http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1231-01.htmSo, he's saying that the world consumes too many resources, thatour resourcesare finite BUT, nobody has the faintest idea when they will go into decline.Now, I think the guy isa clown - maybe a dangerous one.Mike "Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know"- M. King Hubbert
Julian Voelcker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You really should just ignore George Mombiot. He's just a silly little man full of his own importance and always has been.He likes to provide an opinion on everything from the environment, biofuels, class structure, etc and I am yet to find anyone that agrees with his opinions.What surprises me is that there are Editors out there willing to publish his drivel.--Regards,Julian___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Quackbuster Busted in Court

2006-02-28 Thread bob allen

I try to keep an open mind but certain individuals are so over the top 
as to loose all credibility.  From the cited article, it was hard to 
tell just what was won. Bolen makes it seem like a really big deal, but, 
all I could find was that aetna did not have standing to make the claims 
they did.


here is a more informative article in my opinion.  see particularly the 
last few paragraphs.


Aetna Counterclaim Against Dental Diagnostic Device Manufacturer Dismissed

http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sfb/lawArticleSFB.jsp?id=1139393112072

Peter Geier
The National Law Journal
February 9, 2006

The maker of a dental diagnostic device and holistic dentists who use it 
to prescribe radical therapies that involve pulling teeth to treat 
nondental conditions extracted a win in the latest round in their battle 
against insurer Aetna Inc.

U.S. District Judge Marcia S. Krieger in Denver dismissed the Hartford, 
Conn.-based insurance titan's countersuit against Cavitat Medical 
Technologies Inc. of Emory, Texas, and Cavitat owner and founder Robert 
J. Jones. Cavitat Medical Technologies Inc. v. Aetna Inc., No. 04-1849 
(D. Colo.).

Cavitat's lawsuit, filed in Colorado federal court, accused Aetna of 
publishing and disseminating injurious falsehoods, unlawful restraint 
of trade and racketeering over a 2002 policy bulletin that denied 
insurance coverage for claims based on procedures that employ its 
diagnostic Cavitat system.

In its countersuit, Aetna sought among other things to recoup 429 claims 
it said it had paid to 17 dentists nationwide. Aetna alleged that the 
dentists fraudulently recoded disapproved procedures as approved on 
Cavitat's advice.

Krieger ruled that Aetna lacked standing to bring a Colorado Consumer 
Protection Act claim because the alleged deceptive trade practices that 
caused Aetna injury were not the same practices that Aetna contends 
affected the public.

The judge also dismissed Aetna's fraud and civil conspiracy claims, 
ruling that Aetna's argument that Cavitat advised others to make 
misrepresentations on claims is insufficient to state a claim for direct 
fraud. And the judge ruled that Aetna's allegations were not detailed 
enough to plead the fraud component of the civil conspiracy claim.

Cynthia B. Michener, an Aetna spokeswoman, said that the company 
disagrees with the court's decision and maintains that its counterclaim 
was firmly grounded in the law and facts.

However, the evidence we collected for our counterclaim will be very 
useful in defending Aetna against Cavitat's only two remaining claims, 
Michener said, adding that Krieger's decision leaves us free to pursue 
fraud claims against the dentists who use the Cavitat technology.

Andrew B. Reid of the Walter L. Gerash Law Firm in Denver, who 
represents Cavitat, said that Aetna's defense highlights an amazing 
situation of mudslinging between crusaders of two different philosophies 
of medical practice: traditional practitioners and those pioneering 
alternative practices.

We allege in our litigation that Aetna is just trying to avoid or delay 
a huge potential liability ... meanwhile depriving their members of the 
proven medical benefits of this device.

The case is scheduled for trial in June on Cavitat's two surviving 
claims against Aetna: disparagement and tortious interference with 
prospective business relationship or contract.

FROM MS TO CANCER

Cavitat system users employ the device to locate cavitations, or areas 
of bone loss or deterioration in their patients' jaws, which, they 
believe, are made particularly susceptible by prior conventional amalgam 
fillings and root canal work.

Such practitioners claim that neuralgia-inducing cavitational 
osteonecrosis, or NICO, diagnosed in these areas can cause an array of 
medical complaints such as chronic fatigue, multiple sclerosis, Lou 
Gehrig's disease and cancer.

Evelyn F. Ireland, executive director of the National Association of 
Dental Plans, a Dallas-based nonprofit trade association that represents 
the dental benefits industry, said that the high profile of the Aetna 
case has prompted other insurers to review whether they have paid 
similar claims, but that the numbers are comparatively small.

Although Aetna named 17 practitioners in its counterclaim -- less than 
one in every 10,000 practicing dentists -- Ireland also pointed out that 
Cavitat is just the brand name for a single supplier of this type of 
device and not the only supplier out there.

David J. Wilzig, a solo practitioner in Los Angeles, has settled three 
individual dental malpractice cases in Orange County, Calif., against 
two Huntington Beach dentists who used the Cavitat system to diagnose 
and treat patients.

Wilzig, who said his main practice involves business litigation between 
doctors, said that he began taking these cases because he was outraged 
at what he sees as a selective predatory practice.

This isn't medicine, it's out-and-out fraud! And it's especially

50 matches

Mail list logo